The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal

[nerdgirl 0]

Provocative teaser story on the purported success of drug decriminalization in Portugal from Salon.com.

This has been an issue of discussion many times here in SC, with little empirical data, as I recall. Eight years into a policy, the experience of Portugal may provide such.

“In 2001, Portugal became the only EU-member state to decriminalize drugs, a distinction which continues through to the present. Last year, working with the Cato Institute, I went to that country in order to resear ch the effects of the decriminalization law (which applies to all substances, including cocaine and heroin) and to interview both Portuguese and EU drug policy officials and analysts (the central EU drug policy monitoring agency is, by coincidence, based in Lisbon).

“Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.

“‘Strictly on empirical grounds’ means excluding from the assessment: (a) ideological questions regarding the legitimacy of imprisoning adults for consuming drugs they choose to consume; (b) the evisceration of Constitutional and civil liberties wrought by drug criminalization; and (c) the extraordinary sums of money devoted to the War on Drugs both domestically and internationally.”

NB: In a December 2008 Speakers Corner poll, the “War on Drugs” was the 2nd “biggest waste of taxpayers’ money over the last 30 years.”

“There is clearly a growing recognition around the world and even in the U.S. that, strictly on empirical grounds, criminalization approaches to drug usage and, especially, the ‘War on Drugs,’ are abject failures, because they worsen the exact problems they are ostensibly intended to address.

“Very recent events demonstrating this evolving public debate over drug policy include the declaration of the Drug War's failure from several former Latin American leaders; a new Economist Editorial calling for full-scale drug legalization; new polls showing substantial and growing numbers of Americans (and a majority of Canadians) supportive of marijuana legalization; the decision of the DEA to make good on Obama's campaign pledge to cease raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in states which have legalized its usage; and numerous efforts in the political mainstream to redress the harsh and disparate criminal penalties imposed for drug offenses, including Obama's support for treatment rather than prison for first-time drug offenders.”

Is an intersection with “Culture Warriors” of last 25 years evidenced in these next assertions?

“Particularly in the U.S., there is still widespread support for criminalization approaches and even support for the most extreme and destructive aspects of the ‘War on Drugs,’ but, for a variety of reasons, the debate over drug policy has become far more open than ever before.”

One can observe such in the (mis)-perceptions regarding effectiveness of harsher sentencing.]

“Portugal's success with decriminalization is highly instructive, particularly since the impetus for it was their collective recognition in the 1990s that criminalization was failing to address -- and was almost certainly exacerbating -- their exploding, poverty-driven drug crisis."

While Mayor Giuliani’s “broken windows” strategy – aggressive policing of lower-level crimes and fixing broken windows, dilapidated infrastructure, etc – has been touted w/r/t reducing crime in NYC, there were also increases in the minimum wage (10%) that correlated to reduction in robberies (3.4-3.7%) and murders (6.3-6.9%).

"As a consensus in that country now recognizes, decriminalization is what enabled them to manage drug-related problems far more effectively than ever before, and the nightmare scenarios warned of by decriminalization opponents have, quite plainly, never materialized.

“The counter-productive effects of drug criminalization are at least as evident now for the U.S. as they were for pre-decriminalization Portugal. Beyond one's ideological beliefs regarding the legitimacy of criminalization, drug policy should be determined by objective, empirical assessments of what works and what does not work. It’s now been more than seven years since Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and dispassionately examining the effects of that decision provides a unique opportunity to assess questions of drug policy in the most rational and empirical manner possible.”

I tend to have mixed thinking w/r/t legalization/criminalization of recreational or non-therapeutic drugs. They are illegal therefore I don’t use them. The policies do not have correlations (never mind causative relations) with reducing crime or criminal activity, and the current policies cost a lot of money while the benefit is largely in black market economies. Those empirical and policy issues I do care about.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

I'd prefer to see a case example that was at a much larger scale that Portugal, which has a population on par with the greater Bay Area.

Here, we have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people working in the drug war and simply ending it requires a radical shift in people and resources to more productive endeavors. We can't turn DEA cops into drug counselors. It's like the end of the Cold War and the peace dividend that was so expensive for California in the short term of the early 90s.

There's also the question of what the established crime syndicates do in the short term - do they find replacement markets to corrupt and fight over, or do they just disappear in to the night?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I'd prefer to see a case example that was at a much larger scale that Portugal, which has a population on par with the greater Bay Area.

Here, we have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people working in the drug war and simply ending it requires a radical shift in people and resources to more productive endeavors. We can't turn DEA cops into drug counselors. It's like the end of the Cold War and the peace dividend that was so expensive for California in the short term of the early 90s.

There's also the question of what the established crime syndicates do in the short term - do they find replacement markets to corrupt and fight over, or do they just disappear in to the night?

Well perhaps the solution to the first issue is contained in the second. They could be the organized crime administration.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well perhaps the solution to the first issue is contained in the second. They could be the organized crime administration.

I suspect that would be the result, though it would be more about employment than effective oversight. The issues would change sufficiently that it would not be well organized to address it.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Not neccessarily. If the drug pie shrinks due to legislation it would present an opportunity to shrink the overall footprint of organized crime. I think it would be a very good time to crank up the pressure on the gangs. The shinking pie would no doubt cause several wars. The combination of more violence, fewer rewards and increased police pressure could put a dent into things.

[pchapman 262]

Interesting.
Another place to look at is the Netherlands, where it sounds like they did have some problems with decriminalization. But I don't know how the arguments balance out so I can't comment further.
We also have to be careful to distinguish between legalizing and decriminalizing.

[BIGUN 1,109]

Here's my empirical data - Once there's no more drunk drivers, then lets talk about legalizing marijuana.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[n23x 0]

That would be like saying:

Here's my empirical data - Once there's no more skydiving-related deaths, then let's talk about legalizing BASE.

I mean, come on, they're the same thing, right?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[TheAnvil 0]

Last week's ECONOMIST had a great article supporting the decriminalization of drugs. I REALLY think the US needs to start that process.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Here's my empirical data - Once there's no more drunk drivers, then lets talk about legalizing marijuana.

Studies show that driving under the influence of cannabis does not adversely affect driving to anywhere near the extent of driving under the influence of alcohol. It is comparable to driving under the influence of OTC cold medicine that has been taken as directed.

I'm far more concerned about drivers who talk on their cell phones, with or without hands free accessories, than I am with drivers high on pot.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BIGUN 1,109]

Quote

Studies show that driving under the influence of cannabis does not adversely affect driving to anywhere near the extent of driving under the influence of alcohol.

OK, so we need another what; .25., .15., 10 percent impaired drivers out there?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Studies show that driving under the influence of cannabis does not adversely affect driving to anywhere near the extent of driving under the influence of alcohol.

OK, so we need another what; .25., .15., 10 percent impaired drivers out there?

I think it shouldn't be a concern. We let people eat while they drive, which is distracting. We let people talk on phones while they drive, which is distracting. People do all kinds of things while driving that diminishes their ability to focus on the task at hand. Singling out one of the things that has such a minimal effect for no real reason other than political correctness seems as asinine as the drug war itself.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Interesting.
Another place to look at is the Netherlands, where it sounds like they did have some problems with decriminalization.

AFAIK they only decriminalized pot, not cocaine/heroine. And even pot was decriminalized only partially - for example, you can legally buy one in a licensed shop, but you cannot legally resell it.

Quote

We also have to be careful to distinguish between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Aren't those the same? Legalizing -> making it legal, decriminalizing - making it not criminal -> making it legal?

But I'd say the state should decriminalize drugs. And prostitution. And tax the hell out of it as well as reducing police spending.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

We can't turn DEA cops into drug counselors. It's like the end of the Cold War and the peace dividend that was so expensive for California in the short term of the early 90s.

We wouldn't have to, not at first and not for a significant amount of time.

Basically if every illicit drug was decriminalized the illegal trade would not stop. There would be regulations on distribution, manufacturing and the like. Just like it is illegal for you to distill your own whiskey, it would probably be illegal for you to cook your own crack from cocaine (since the government would have a hard time taxing that). So the focus would shift, but the players would all stay the same. What would change is the focus on users, diverting much used resources to the providers.

Depending on the price and availability, I do not believe all the peripheral crime would cease (theft, burglary, etc).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Basically if every illicit drug was decriminalized the illegal trade would not stop. There would be regulations on distribution, manufacturing and the like.

Depending on price and availability. Once illegal alcohol production was on rise, but once dry law has been repealed, it went down pretty fast.

Quote

Just like it is illegal for you to distill your own whiskey, it would probably be illegal for you to cook your own crack from cocaine (since the government would have a hard time taxing that).

Not necessary, as cocaine is already taxed. You still have to pay tax for whiskey, but the government does not forbid you making cocktails out of it.

Quote

So the focus would shift, but the players would all stay the same. What would change is the focus on users, diverting much used resources to the providers.

It would go the same way as alcohol situation: once the profit margin decreases dramatically, most major crime gangs would leave the "business".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[wmw999 2,178]

Quote

I do not believe all the peripheral crime would cease (theft, burglary, etc).

By no means would it end all of it. There was still crime around drinking even after the end of Prohibition, too.

The gold standard isn't whether all of a problem is fixed by a solution. It's whether the fix is enough better, without serious enough consequences, to be worth it. That's a MUCH different standard. Fixing 80% of the biggest piece of a problem is the gold standard for one process improvement methodology.

Of course, first you have to quantify the effects of your problem.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[hwt 0]

Here's my empirical data - Once there's no more drunk drivers, then lets talk about legalizing marijuana.
__________________________________________________
Are you implying that we need to outlaw alcohol??
Prohibition does not work, never did and never will.
When they outlawed alcohol, they started the largest increase in crime and violence. Mobs and the rum runners and the speak easy bars.
Not to mention the quality went unregulated .
Why do people always try and control other peoples choices?The action of a few do not justify the banning for everyone.Blue Skies!

[pchapman 262]

Quote

Aren't those the same? Legalizing -> making it legal, decriminalizing - making it not criminal -> making it legal?

The idea is that there is a level in between: For example, parking in a no parking zone or simple speeding are against the law and you get sanctioned for it, but you don't get a criminal record.

There was a short while in Canada a few years ago, before a change to a more conservative government, where pot was effectively decriminalized. Anyone found smoking or in possession of small amounts would be fined, but they wouldn't get a criminal record. (... and have problems crossing the border to go to boogies in the USA...)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Last week's ECONOMIST had a great article supporting the decriminalization of drugs. I REALLY think the US needs to start that process.

It's linked in my initial post: a new Economist Editorial calling for full-scale drug legalization.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[wmw999 2,178]

(sigh) I love the Economist. I just wish I took the time to read it all every week. It competes with the newspaper, which has Dear Abby . Sometimes there are only enough brain cells for Dear Abby.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Interesting.
Another place to look at is the Netherlands, where it sounds like they did have some problems with decriminalization.

AFAIK they only decriminalized pot, not cocaine/heroine. And even pot was decriminalized only partially - for example, you can legally buy one in a licensed shop, but you cannot legally resell it.

I think that's one of the key differences and why the Portugal case is (?)/may be (?) particularly notable. It was what got my attention.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

(sigh) I love the Economist. I just wish I took the time to read it all every week.

They do have excellent podcasts.

Marg ... podcast addict

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Here's my empirical data - Once there's no more drunk drivers, then lets talk about legalizing marijuana.

Where and by what method has drunk driving been decreased most effectively?

I suspect drunk driving is very low in Saudi Arabia, so there's one method ... not one that I support but one option nonetheless.

Otoh, a case with which I am somewhat familiar is Norway. There are real consequences for driving with very low BALs.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[BIGUN 1,109]

Quote

Are you implying that we need to outlaw alcohol??
Prohibition does not work, never did and never will.
When they outlawed alcohol, they started the largest increase in crime and violence. Mobs and the rum runners and the speak easy bars.
Not to mention the quality went unregulated .
Why do people always try and control other peoples choices?The action of a few do not justify the banning for everyone.Blue Skies!

No where in my post does it mention outlawing alcohol.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,109]

Quote

There are real consequences for driving with very low BALs.

Exactly my point. Let's address that first, then we can talk about the Doobie Brothers.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.